Isn't 'make depend' optional?

[Tony Lambregts]

Bang Jun-Young wrote:

>On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 04:49:21PM +0200, Joerg Mayer wrote:
>  
>
>>On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 11:22:54PM +0900, Bang Jun-Young wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>In what cases?
>>>      
>>>
>>I don't know.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I think you never understand what the purpose of 'make depend' is.
>>>      
>>>
>>You may be right here :-) I think make depend builds for each source file
>>a list of all other files it includes (recursively). So if one of theses
>>files has changed, an existing object file get rebuild.
>>So if something in the include or #define structure (e.g. config.h)
>>changes, you need to do a new make depend.
>>    
>>
>
>If none of files in the source directories is supposed to change,
>e.g. making a binary package from sources, 'make depend' is completely
>unnecessary, 
>
>  
>
>>That's my understanding of what make depend is good for.
>>    
>>
>
>I intepret "be good for" to "be useful for", not "be required for."
>
>Jun-Young
>
>  
>
In this case required for would be true.  Running make depend ensures 
that all dependencys are accounted for and in most cases they do not 
change from one snapshot to the next., but that is not guarnteed.  It 
seems to me there have been quite a few changes that would affect 
dependencys since the last snapshot.  What you are saying is that you 
don't "_have_to_" run make depend each time you compile wine, which is 
true. just as you dont "_have _to_ " run ./configure each time wine 
changes.   There are times when you do and running make depend does not 
take that long and it makes sure that everything is in the right place.  

If you realy want to avoid it you can work around it as you have,  or 
you can run make depend, your choice I suppose.


Tony Lambregts